The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-04-23
THE MADRAS CASE.
The Jury Return a Verdict Against
the Hawaiian Government.

aO,Jt D.
as follows:
Loss on ,8G1 tons gross regis
ter for detention at I'd. pee day
according to customary allow
ance of the British Admiralty
Courts, 942 Os. Cd. per day for 30
50 DAYS equals .........--..-.. Sll 100 oZ
"u at 4Oc ner dav ..-' ' 1865 80
Four boats of fresh water 3UO w
Seventy-nine and half tons coal
board at SIS. 50. ',.............. lob %
Interest from June I'd, 1883, TO
9months i0O' 6,973 70
Total $35, $50 80
The following was the jury: w. w.
Hall. Max Green, H. J. Agnew, E. Mar
shall, C. A. Brown, M. McInerny, Major
Hills, H. A. Parmalee, H. Cathcart, j..
Emmeluth, H. Lewis and E. L. Marshall.
The evidence was all in by three
O'Clock yesterday, after which the argu-
ments of counsel for both sides were de-
livered. His Honor Justice McCully in
summing up said:
The Madras had the same rights as other
been ANONYMOUSLY called a tramp. That
she arrived unannounced did not affect her
rights, as there was a large increase In the
number of passengers from China at that
time The Court proceeded to instruct
the Jury in response to requests from coun-
sci on both sides. While the Hawaiian
Government had the right to refuse per
mission to any vessel with contagious
disease on board to enter; yet the Madras
had the right, under the treaty with the
United Kingdom, to be admitted to quar-
antine The laws relating to the Board OF
Health, and the regulations of that body,
implied the right of quarantine to vessels.
If the vessel violated the Boards regula-
tions, she was liable to coniscation; but
there was no regulation which said that
vessel, under any circumstances, should
have no quarantine at all. His Honor re-
ferred to a former decision in this case
heard first by the Chief Justice, and after
wards, on appeal, by the full Court. He
agreed with Mr.. Whiting that the decision
written by himself, must stand upon the
language by which it is reasonably con-
strued; but he would state that what was
meant in the part quoted by counsel was
that a vessel could be refused admission,
but that prohibition was not quarantine.
The whole argument of defendant was
'Shall it be said that any vessel with con-
tagion on board shall be allowed to steam
into this port?" "No," was the Courts
answer; 'but she is entitled to her quar-
antine." His Honor quoted further from
former decision as part OF his instructions,
and said that the testimony. of the Port
Physician and of the Agent of the Board of
Health was very positive to show that the
passengers might have been landed in
quarantine, and the vessel permitted to
continue on her voyage. The vessel herself
did not require quarantine, provided her
passengers were not kept aboard of her. On
the point of unnecessary detention of the
vessel, the Court held with the plaintiffs.
The time the vessel was detained before
quarantining was not quarantine. She was
more foul when she commenced quarantine
than when she first arrived. She was COM
PEELED to keep her passengers here because
she could not land them, and could not
carry them anywhere else. According to
the regulations OF the Board of Health "a YES
sci with contagious disease on board should
be admitted to quarantine on arrival. Fiji
teen days detention would not be necessary
for the vessel, provided she was admitted
to quarantine and allowed to land her pas
sengers. Defendant asked for instructions
that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages,
on certain grounds contained in the evil
dence regarding the refusal of the Collector
and the Board of Health, which the Court
declined to give. The expression of willing
ness by the Board of Health to admit the
vessel to quarantine without landing her
passengers did not make quarantine what
ever it might be called. All the ill temper,
hard language, ETC., of the captain were not
to be considered by the Court. The cap
tain was liable, if he had violated any pro-
visions of the quarantine, to be fined
His Honor did not see very closely the
of the laws of 1878, that vessel
from China should not be allowed to enter
without the consent of the Governor of the
Island. The captain of the Madras did ask
for quarantine and was refused. The yes
sci having rights, if she was refused her
rights and damages were thereby occas-
toned her, she had right to recover them
Those damages had been set forth in
items and they were such as the vessel in
Cured by detention which otherwise she
would not have incurred. As to whether
the loss should be reckoned on the gross or |
net tonnage, it seemed that the charge was
based on the gross tonnage while the vessel |
entered her net tonnage at the Custom |
House. The Court instructed the Jury on |
LAY days" and other particulars on which |
they requested information, and then the |
case was given them for elaboration.
Mr. Whiting, before the jury retired.
noted exceptions to the Courts rulings on
the instructions asked for by counsel on /
both sides
The jury returned with a unanimous |
verdict for plaintiffs at about $50 O'Clock
awarding damages against the Hawaiian |
Government for detention of steamship |
Madras, as follows:
Detention of vessel for so days
(and not So as claimed) SIO.5OO 90 |
Subsistence of 738 men for so
days at SOC. land not doc. as
claimed1 . II o7o m /
Four boat loads fresh water 30O on !
Seventy-nine tons coal . lOZ3 25 |